Commonwealth v. Royal
| Decision Date | 30 June 1930 |
| Citation | 172 N.E. 114,272 Mass. 100 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH v. ANDERSON. SAME v. ROYAL. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Middlesex County; Frederick W. Fosdick, Judge.
E. Robert Anderson was convicted of selling a book without a license, and Harold O. Royal was convicted of offering for sale a book without a license, and they except.
Exceptions overruled.R. T. Bushnell, Dist. Atty., of Boston, for the Commonwealth.
C. Scott, of Maine, J. F. Hughes and H. H. Patten, both of Boston, for defendants.
The defendants were found guilty on indictments based upon G. L. c. 101, §§ 13, 14, St. 1929, c. 349, one charging in substance that E. Robert Anderson on September 1, 1929, did sell a book without a license so to do, in Melrose, in the county of Middlesex, and the other that Harold O. Royal did offer for sale a book, at Melrose, on the first day of September, 1929, without license so to do. The two cases were tried together. It was agreed that one bill of exceptions might be filed in behalf of both defendants and that the bill of exceptions filed contains all evidence material to the questions raised.
The evidence warranted the jury in finding the following facts as proved beyond a reasonable doubt: On September 1, 1929, the defenant Anderson came to the home of one Dodge, who lived at Melrose Highlands, with a suit case in his hand containing books. He took some out and offered to sell six books at the price of $2.50. Dodge did not buy these books, but finally bought and received a set of books for $.25, which were offered in evidence. Dodge testified in cross-examination that Anderson said that ‘his object in doing this was to educate the people in the contents of these books' which the witness understood were of a religious nature. On September 1, 1929, the defendant Harold O. Royal came to the house of one Bowen with a suit case, asked for the mother of Bowen and when she came to the door said he had one book for sale at $5 and offered it to her but she did not take it. While Anderson was talking to Dodge one Murray, who had seen Anderson pass the books to Dodge, asked Anderson if he had a license. Anderson replied that he had not and did not need one. While Murray was talking to Anderson, the defendant Royal appeared and when asked if he had a license to sell books said that he did not and further did not need one. Both defendants said they intended to continue to attempt the sale of books in Melrose.
At the trial the defendant Royal testified that he was in Melrose on September 1, 1929, called at various houses, explained the mission or the purport of his work or calling, exhibited to people therein books and pamphlets which he carried with him if they showed sufficient interest in his verbal message, if not he did not exhibit the books; that if people wanted these books he let them have them at the cost of publication; that he paid his own expenses when engaged in this work, which was philanthropic; that he never offered any book for $5, and that the highest amount accepted for any individual book was $.45. He further testified that he met the witness Murray and told him his purpose was to enlighten people concerning God's wonderful kingdom now being consummated on earth; that he told him that he did not have any license to sell books and he did not consider that he required one for that particular purpose; that he considered he was exercising his constitutional right in preaching the gospel according to the dictates of his conscience and that was why he was going out proclaiming this message to the people. Upon cross-examination he testified ‘that he was accompanied in the same automobile as the defendant Anderson on the day in question and that the defendant Anderson was doing the same thing as him, that is going from house to house with these books for the same purpose.’
Anderson testified that he was engaged in doing the same thing as Royal testified to; that he approached Dodge with the statement that he was associated with J. F. Rutherford of New York in spreading the message of good news among the people; that this message was to the effect that the time of deliverance was at hand for poor, groaning creation; that the ‘message * * * [was] too good to keep to * * * [themselves], and * * * [they were] constrained to go about and make it known to others'; that he carried six books and he presented six booklets to Dodge and told him that they were simply asking the cost of publication of those books; that the cost of the entire set was $2.45 for the six books and the six booklets ‘which * * * [he] came down to he could have for 50 cents, the cost of publication and handling’; that Dodge did not want these books, ‘so * * * [he] then came down to a combination of three booklets'; that ‘* * * [he] wanted to present him the opportunity of getting this combination that * * * [he] had, in order to bring it to his attention,’ and that Dodge then accepted the combination of three booklets and gave in return $.25 for them.
In the course of his examination the defendant Royal offered proof of, and the judge received in evidence, the following statement: ‘That on the first day of September A. D. 1929, commonly called Sunday, the defendants and each of them did call at one or more houses in the city of Melrose in said Commonwealth and did then and there exhibit to one or more persons, books and pamphlets containing an explanation of the Bible and instruction therein, and particularly in relation to God's kingdom and His means of blessing the human race, and did then and there deliver books, pamphlets and magazines containing Bible sermons and instructions and received from one or more persons money therefor, to wit: One book of 385 pages bound in cloth, stamped in gold, illustrated, [272 Mass. 104]45¢; and one paper covered book of 64 pages 10¢; and on said occasion of so calling upon the persons mentioned, and at the homes mentioned, and at the time and places mentioned, the defendants and neither of them had a license as specified and contemplated by section 17 of the General Statutes, Chapter 101 and Amendments thereto of said Commonwealth of Massachusetts.’
At the close of all the evidence each defendant moved that a verdict of not guilty be ordered. The motions were denied and each defendant excepted. The defendants also excepted ‘to the failure of the court upon the defendants' motion to order a verdict on the phase of the case referring to going from house to house.’
The defendants made seven requests for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taylor v. State
... ... 358, ... writ of error dismissed in 273 U.S. 782, 47 S.Ct. 470, 71 ... L.Ed. 890; Berg v. State, 29 Okl.Cr. 112, 233 P ... 497; Commonwealth v. Widovich, 295 Pa. 311, 145 A ... 295, affirming 93 Pa.Super. 323, appeal dismissed and ... certiorari denied 280 U.S. 518, 50 S.Ct. 66, 74 ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Nichols
...659; Commonwealth v. Karvonen, 219 Mass. 30, 106 N.E. 556, L.R.A.1915B, 706, Ann.Cas.1916D, 846;Commonwealth v. Anderson, 272 Mass. 100, 106, 172 N.E. 114, 69 A.L.R. 1097. ‘Liberty implies the absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed ......
-
Commonwealth v. Pascone
...162 Mass. 510 , affirmed, sub nomine Davis v. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43. Commonwealth v. Green, 268 Mass. 585 , 586. Commonwealth v. Anderson, 272 Mass. 100 , 106. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 160-167; Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333. We see nothing in conflict with what is here d......
-
Commonwealth v. Pascone
...167 U.S. 43, 17 S.Ct. 731, 42 L.Ed. 71;Commonwealth v. Green, 268 Mass. 585, 586, 168 N.E. 101;Commonwealth v. Anderson, 272 Mass. 100, 106, 172 N.E. 114, 69 A.L.R. 1097. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 160-167, 25 L.Ed. 244;Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. ......